Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187372
Reserved On:- 24.09.2025 Delivered On:- 27.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2279 of 2025
Juvenile X
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Anand Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Vikas Singh
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; learned AGA for State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the trial court record.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun @ Orai, in Case No. 09 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 1074 of 2014, Under Section 376(2)Cha I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun as well as judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2025 (Kamal @vKomal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 1074 of 2014, Under Section 376(2)Cha I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kadaura, District- Jalaun.
-
The prosecution case is that the victim, aged about 6 years, had gone to the house of her neighbour at about 9-00 a.m on 10.06.2014 to bring butter milk. At that time the revisionist finding her alone in his house, committed the offence of rape against her. The child victim went back to her mother narrated the incident caused by the revisionist against her. When the mother of the victim made complaint of revisionist to his father, he got annoyed and asked her not to tell anyone about the incident.
-
During trial, father of victim, Vijay Narain, was examined as P.W.-1; Mother of victim was examined as P.W.-2; Victim was examined as P.W.-3; Lady Constable was examined as P.W.-4; Lady Doctor was examined as P.W.-5; Jaipal was examined as P.W.-6 and Inspector was examined as P.W.-7.
-
Revisionist was examined under Section- 281 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court. He denied the charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated.
-
The Juvenile Justice Board found that the statements of the witnesses are true and the child victim (P.W.-3) has fully supported the prosecution case. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case and the statement of victim and hence directed that the revisionist should be punished by detention in special home for 2 years.
-
The Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Board as correct and dismissed the appeal and hence this revision.
-
Leaned counsel for appellant has relied upon the statement of P.W.-5, the doctor, who examined the child victim. In suggestion made to her by defence she has stated that the injury suffered by the child victim could have been caused from the seat of the bicycle while riding on the same.
-
This court finds that in the INTERNAL GENITO- ANAL EXAMINATION of child victim the following findings have been recorded :-
"Hymen fresh torn about 2 days back, very slight losing of blood from vulva orifice present. A light swelling and tenderness is at vaginal orifice. Anus- very slight about half 1/2 cm. laceration seen at anus."
-
This court finds that the nature of injuries suffered by the child victim, read with her testimony before the court leave no doubt that the incident as alleged by the prosecution was correct. The doctor has only expressed possibility of such injury from bicycle seat to the child victim but the doctor has only replied to the suggestion made to her during cross examination. It is not her definite opinion and only a possibility which stands ruled out, keeping in view the totality of evidence on record. There was no evidence led by prosecution to prove that child victim knows riding of bicycle.
-
This court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded in the judgments of both the courts below. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
Revisionist is on bail as per order dated 22.07.2025 passed by this Court. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He directed to surrender forthwith and carry out the remaining sentence.
-
Registry is directed to return the trial court record and notify this judgment also to the trial court and the appellate court within a period of ten days.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 27, 2025
Rohit
